Sunday, October 21, 2018

Families For Freedom: “Fight to Win”

This is an excerpt from the Families
For Freedom newsletter for September, treating the important issue of
activist approaches to local ICE detention contracts. To subscribe, email info@familiesforfreedom.org; you
can contribute to FFF here.)—TPOI
editor.

In early September, Hudson County announced
their intent to phase out their detention contract with ICE by 2020. The news
came after concerted efforts by local faith-based and advocacy groups to end
the contract, and a
lawsuit filed by the ACLU that targeted the Freeholders' shady actions in
trying to get the contract renewed without community input.

The potential cancellation of ICE's contract in Hudson represents political
strength: it would not be possible without growing support in our movement
against immigration detention, if ICE's name did not now correctly represent
malice and evil to the general public. Yet at the same time, it counteracts
another win that also represented political strength, the establishment of the
New York Immigrant Family Unity Project. On the one hand, the win of access to
indispensable legal representation; on the other, the win of building political
power among allies outside.

Critics of the phase-out are concerned that people detained in Hudson will
be moved to remote detention centers, far from their families and attorneys.
NYIFUP lawyers have
come out in strong opposition to the planned phase-out on these
grounds. In support of their position stand previous incidents, like when trans
women incarcerated by ICE in Santa Ana City Jail, close to a dense network of
support and services groups, were
moved far away to a remote facility in rural New Mexico. Supporters of
the Hudson contract ending—and of the growing number of other similar successes
around the country—are behind it because of the political momentum it both
creates and represents.

Beyond these two positions, there is also the question of efficacy. One of
the organizations involved in the campaign against the Hudson contract stated
that in order to abolish ICE "we must destroy ICE's capacity to
incarcerate people." The statement is noble but the problem with it lies
in the fact that this political win does not affect ICE's ability to
incarcerate people. Anything that we can do to hinder ICE—to make 'em bleed—is
absolutely worth doing, but we must understand that contracts with local jails
and private prison companies come and go, whether in scandal or in silence.

Back in 2009-10, after people detained in Varick Street in Manhattan went
on hunger strikes to draw attention to horrific conditions there, the jail
stopped incarcerating people, many of whom would not be jailed in Hudson. But
this decision was made by ICE, and its purpose was to get away from local
scrutiny. More recently, in the wake of an 18-month-old baby being killed by
her contact
with the detention and deportation system, the City of Eloy pulled
their contract with ICE for a family detention in South Texas. This too
was a decision supported by ICE, and the contract has now been redrawn, this
time with the city of Dilley, TX.

Across the country, more counties and cities are folding detention
contracts with ICE, both under public pressure and without it. But as long as ending
such contracts doesn't get people free, we have to ask ourselves what value
these closures have. In contrast to ending contracts that promote information
sharing between local law enforcement and ICE, or legislation barring ICE from
certain areas, cancelling detention contracts more than likely just means
relocating jails. Abolition doesn't mean the transporting of incarcerated
people from county to county, nor the opportunity for new profit to be spun
from immiseration; it means no more people locked up. What value do these
campaigns have if the results resemble ICE's own past actions, and fail to
promote political power among those incarcerated in these facilities?

To that point, it is noteworthy that in the debate that has unfolded about
whether this closure is of value, the voices of the directly affected have been
relatively absent.

Lawyers in movement are often correctly criticized for failing to see the
forest for the trees, for working timidly within what's presently possible
instead of pushing the boundaries of what is possible. But the concerns and
criticisms raised by the lawyers here need not lead to a purely reformist
attitude, focused only on procedural justice instead of actual justice. The
concerns invite us who believe in abolishing ICE and the entire prison
industrial complex to continue asking the question: how can we be effective?
How do we ensure our fights are changing the conditions people suffer under,
and not providing an outlet for the moral outrage of spectators? How do we fight
to win?

No comments:

About The Politics of Immigration

The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers is a book that goes beyond soundbites to tackle concerns about immigration in straightforward language and an accessible question-and-answer format. For immigrants and supporters, the book is a useful tool to confront stereotypes and disinformation. For those who are undecided about immigration, it lays out the facts and clear reasoning they need to develop an informed opinion. Ideal for classroom use, the updated and expanded 2017 edition provides a succinct overview of U.S. immigration history, policy, and practice, with detailed notes guiding readers toward further exploration.
Guskin and Wilson have written extensively on immigration and facilitated dozens of dialogues on the topic with students, community activists, congregations, and other public audiences. To arrange a dialogue or for more information, contact them at thepoliticsofimmigration@gmail.com.
To stay in the loop on author events and related resources, follow the book on Twitter (@Immigration_QA) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/ImmigrationQA/).